There's a shitload of stuff the religious right finds offensive. Don't think that there aren't those out there that would love to outlaw divorce and birth control.

Just look to the laws of the Islamist countries if you want to see the dangers of allowing religious morality into state affairs.

Well now I think you being a bit ridiculous in some of those examples. Out law divorce, in this country? I mean where is that even being mentioned? Plus aren't and shouldn't some of these things be state's rights issues?

Look I'm against abortion, but can see the legitimacy of the debate. But even still that is an example in which a person can avoid the over reach (IF abortion were outlawed, I'm assuming the exception of the case of the mother's health being on the line).

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

There's a shitload of stuff the religious right finds offensive. Don't think that there aren't those out there that would love to outlaw divorce and birth control.

Just look to the laws of the Islamist countries if you want to see the dangers of allowing religious morality into state affairs.

Well now I think you being a bit ridiculous in some of those examples. Out law divorce, in this country? I mean where is that even being mentioned? Plus aren't and shouldn't some of these things be state's rights issues?

Look I'm against abortion, but can see the legitimacy of the debate. But even still that is an example in which a person can avoid the over reach (IF abortion were outlawed, I'm assuming the exception of the case of the mother's health being on the line).

I was exaggerating for effect to emphasize how far religious legislation CAN go. I hope none of that shit becomes reality.

State issues, federal issues... they need to keep their moralistic laws to themselves.

Well for instance, more direct taxation, under the guise of some controversial cause. Now, both parties are MORE than capable of doing this sort of thing, but how do you avoid that particular overreach, as opposed to say not being able to have an abortion (if it was overturned)?

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:Well for instance, more direct taxation, under the guise of some controversial cause. Now, both parties are MORE than capable of doing this sort of thing, but how do you avoid that particular overreach, as opposed to say not being able to have an abortion (if it was overturned)?

You are correct, I could take my daughters to Canada for their abortions if it came to that. Shouldn't have to do that, but there's a lot of shit I shouldn't have to do.

And if I live here, can't avoid taxes. But I don't trust either party in this area, and the taxation amount will always wax and wane with the tides. That falls in the bucket of crap that is the US Government Regardless Who's In Charge. I'm sure many will argue otherwise, but it's not a debate I care about having.

Besides, if it came right down to it, I would gladly pay higher taxes to keep abortion legal.

To use an example that doesn't invade our wallets as much, what about the 2nd amendment, if a real effort came about to take the guns? How do you avoid suffering from that overreach? Like abortion it may not be something that comes into your every day life, but it is a right you would no longer have on your side if a scenario arose in which you needed to espouse to a solution which very much could require the use of a firearm.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:To use an example that doesn't invade our wallets as much, what about the 2nd amendment, if a real effort came about to take the guns? How do you avoid suffering from that overreach? Like abortion it may not be something that comes into your every day life, but it is a right you would no longer have on your side if a scenario arose in which you needed to espouse to a solution which very much could require the use of a firearm.

That's an overreach that I'll believe when I see.

The way I see it, there's a lot more Big Money in anti-abortion than there is in anti-gun. Those anti-gun whackjobs don't have nearly the coffers that the churches/cults do. Dems/Repubs... they both swing as their money says they do.

Even then, it's much easier (and safer) to obtain an illegal firearm than an illegal abortion.

The very things I am supposed to be in agreement with the democrats on, Obama has pretty much wrecked that. I am pretty sure, there are honest-to-god people who call themselves Murricans, who thing this meth-head, fraudster who made the little Mohammend film should be arrested. Granted I don't see any of that here, but that is how far we've come, a few people at the water cooler truly thing he should prosecuted under hate crimes and inciting violence. I walked away thinking Jesus H. Christ, these cunts vote, they talk about left-wing shit all the time.

So at the end of the day we all settle for the lesser of two evils. I'd never vote for a dem as their moralistic bullshit is more offensive to me than thumpers moral crusades. The thing is, I am pretty much all for gay marriage, couldn't give a shit less if two gays get married. Same with abortion, I hate it, but don't want to see it outlawed. The problem is those two issues are about 27th and 28th on the list of things I give a shit about. And otherwise I can't think of a good reason to vote democrat outside of a couple of social issues but it's not worth destroying my wallet, and propping up failing companies, and old-school unions so that my two buddies can hold hands in public.

By the way John Cusack interviewing Jonathan Turley about the Obummer's war on the constitution. Back in my youthful democrat days, civil liberties, and the bill of rights seemed pretty damned important to me.

Aw fuck it, let Obummer piss all over our freedoms, he's got a neat idea on health-care and we won't have to worry about those pesky Christians like John Roberts any more. I'd paste the article but I don't think it will come out well.

You obviously need to figure out exactly what the President accomplishes through that office.

I'll give you a hint, about 0% of economic control comes from them.

The point has nothing to do with choosing between the economy and the social issues, the point is BOTH sides are going to fuck the economy in their own special way right now and with the congressional mess it'll be as bloated and beaurocratic a way as possible.

Since it's a truly hopeless situation (DID YOU EVER READ MCCAIN'S TAX PROPOSALS!#!#%!) I'd rather protect at least my social liberties (if I felt I had to, I don't since Mitt can't win so I won't be voting).

The difference between the economic platform Obama ran on and McCain's was paper thin. Romeny and Ryan's tax ideas and platform as just as big of a joke.

Both sides love bureaucratic regulation, period and the republican's started the stimulas game.

We are fucked with either side economically, due to the complete death of fiscal conservatism and combined with the completely inept nature of congress.

Remember TARP? That 1 page bill the White House tried to pass? Remember how it became a 3,000 plus page load of shit handing out pork to every congressional fuck in the country?

At the end of the day the President has suggestive bills for Congress and in this day and age what becomes of those bills is a complete metamorphasis from concept to ridiculous as congress isn't passing anything unless every one of them get their dicks wet.

BTW: National Health Care was inevitable in this country, people that refuse to accept that fact are amusing as hell.

What is amusing is the fact we already have National Health Care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Both victim groups (old and poor) are covered, this was just an attempt to push more (healthy) into a government run system. Like every social program you need an ever expanding customer list to make the scheme work.

I am no apologist for McCain, but we do not have the HC law if he is elected. Romney is as ambiguous as they come, and neither side is going to say anything prior to the debates that will cause waves. If I wanna find blame I will not point at the parites, as they cater to an ignorant yet reactionary electorate. Both sides are vanilla, yet treated as absolute extremists by the opposition, and the American people are too dimwittwed to see through the hackery.

I hardly disagree with your macro point that long term we are fucked either way I suppose we are arguing on the fringe of the fringe. You see the social issues (where I see no long term diff in terms of behavior control), I see the economy (where I concede its prolly just a slower fucking by the Repubs).

On Ryan I have a totally different view, but as VP it does not really matter.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

So getting back to Swerb's prediction does Obama come off damaged as a result of this stuff? His current lead is not terribly strong, but who knows.

I get ey0's saying screw it I'll take the social liberties and I probably would too if they weren't so far down the list. He opinion is more rooted in reality, whereas I hold out this hope that some kind of fiscal order can be restored, but there is a good chance this ain't happening ever again. Bernanke fired up those printing presses again this week.

The very things I am supposed to be in agreement with the democrats on, Obama has pretty much wrecked that. I am pretty sure, there are honest-to-god people who call themselves Murricans, who thing this meth-head, fraudster who made the little Mohammend film should be arrested. Granted I don't see any of that here, but that is how far we've come, a few people at the water cooler truly thing he should prosecuted under hate crimes and inciting violence. I walked away thinking Jesus H. Christ, these cunts vote, they talk about left-wing shit all the time.

So at the end of the day we all settle for the lesser of two evils. I'd never vote for a dem as their moralistic bullshit is more offensive to me than thumpers moral crusades. The thing is, I am pretty much all for gay marriage, couldn't give a shit less if two gays get married. Same with abortion, I hate it, but don't want to see it outlawed. The problem is those two issues are about 27th and 28th on the list of things I give a shit about. And otherwise I can't think of a good reason to vote democrat outside of a couple of social issues but it's not worth destroying my wallet, and propping up failing companies, and old-school unions so that my two buddies can hold hands in public.

e0y2e3 wrote:Despite not knowing if Nicky Minage and Keith Urban joined American Idol for realz or not, that was kind of funny mother.

Your batting average is up to .010!

Gold Star For You.

Bullshit, my average is twice that.

And it's absolutely for realz. I searched for the dumbest, most pointless bit of "news" I could find and that's the first thing I came across. Not sure who Nicky Minage actually is or why anyone would give a fuck

e0y2e3 wrote:When you want to win an election you should ALWAYS insult 47% of the country and talk openly being Latino to win the election!

Totally disagree. Pandering to people who won't vote for you does nothing to help your own cause. Why worry about people that don't like you to begin with. Obama does nothing but demonize the right, and clearly it works for him.

I think Romney should talk more like this. Frankly I still hold hope that the majority of people don't want to be victims, dependent on the government. If you want to be independent and make your own way, why would you vote along with all those vicitms? That's the construct he should be reinforcing.

This isn't a huge deal, but man is it not hilarious how bad he is going to lose this election.

Yeah he is going to lose, maybe big. Because whenever he says something, its blasted across every headline as terrible and horrible. The media is well beyond biased at this point. They're advocates.

Have you even seen one critical headline on Obama? One? The lead story on every station should be that the Libyans warned us days in advance of a possible threat to the Ambassador on 9/11 and nothing was done. And now we have a dead Ambassador to show for it. I can't imagine that not being a headline for any other president, Republican or Democrat. The media would have eaten Clinton alive for something like that.

Oh fuck me sideways, you can may poingant arguments without insulting people. BTW: A leader shouldn't be about pandering to anyone, they should be about unifying the country. Especially considering that this ridiculous divide is what has ruined DC.

And now the "MEDIA LOVES BARRY!!!"

What happened here is simple, Romney tried to play dirty and attack Obama on China and Obama's campaign (which is way better than Romeny's) responded by leaking videos where he looks like an ass to every single news outlet.

It's as important as that stupid priest of Obama's was. But when you are already set to lose you should probably avoid inserting your foot in your mouth.

Yes, those working poor [who don't pay income taxes because guys like Romney fight tooth and nail to pay them dick, yet still pay payroll taxes, etc. and end up with a higher effective tax rate than -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney] really want to stay "victims". Because being poor in this country is AMAZING! Nevermind the hilarity of 47% of people paying "no income tax" because they don't make enough money(real % is more like 7%, but don't let that get in the way of a good story) is due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Just another attempt by the 1% in this country to shift the focus off of the fact that they are the ones who play victim more than anyone else.

I just want one of those people that "don't know how they're going to vote yet" to reveal themselves and explain. Honestly, at this point, how many people really don't know how they're going to vote or could have their vote swayed by something as simple as an off-camera fairly harmless statement?

Maybe there's a whole contingent of people that are going with the Romeo flip-a-coin method.

gotribe31 wrote:Well, we'll see if the comments really influenced anyone soon...a polling cycle ended yesterday with both of them within 1% point of each other. Will be interesting to see what the next polls show:http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

This is why you can't just read one poll and scream, LOOK!~!!!! This is why a math badass like Nate Silver at 538 Blog who does his leg-work, identifies strengths and weaknesses of each poll and weighs them together to create projections is 100x more valuable.

gotribe31 wrote:Well, we'll see if the comments really influenced anyone soon...a polling cycle ended yesterday with both of them within 1% point of each other. Will be interesting to see what the next polls show:http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

This is why you can't just read one poll and scream, LOOK!~!!!! This is why a math badass like Nate Silver at 538 Blog who does his leg-work, identifies strengths and weaknesses of each poll and weighs them together to create projections is 100x more valuable.

The 538 poll has Obama up by an additional 2.3% points. So it's not all that different.

Also, no one was screaming.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

exiledbuckeye wrote:Yes, those working poor [who don't pay income taxes because guys like Romney fight tooth and nail to pay them dick, yet still pay payroll taxes, etc. and end up with a higher effective tax rate than -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney] really want to stay "victims". Because being poor in this country is AMAZING! Nevermind the hilarity of 47% of people paying "no income tax" because they don't make enough money(real % is more like 7%, but don't let that get in the way of a good story) is due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Just another attempt by the 1% in this country to shift the focus off of the fact that they are the ones who play victim more than anyone else.

Uh, since most poor get back those fed and state income taxes, sometimes in excess of what they paid (EIC), they effectively pay SS and Medicare. Then add in food stamps and other aid and well, try again.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

exiledbuckeye wrote:Yes, those working poor [who don't pay income taxes because guys like Romney fight tooth and nail to pay them dick, yet still pay payroll taxes, etc. and end up with a higher effective tax rate than -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney] really want to stay "victims". Because being poor in this country is AMAZING! Nevermind the hilarity of 47% of people paying "no income tax" because they don't make enough money(real % is more like 7%, but don't let that get in the way of a good story) is due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Just another attempt by the 1% in this country to shift the focus off of the fact that they are the ones who play victim more than anyone else.

Uh, since most poor get back those fed and state income taxes, sometimes in excess of what they paid (EIC), they effectively pay SS and Medicare. Then add in food stamps and other aid and well, try again.

I know. It's terrible with all of these poor people living like fucking kings off the govmint teet. LIKE KINGS I SAYS!!!

I say fuck 'em. We shouldnt do shit for those people. They want food, health care, and decent schools?! What do they think this is, a first world country?

I don't have time for their shit. I got my own problems. For example, I just had to walk all the way out to the patio to get a beer because there was none left in the regular fridge. I could have been rainy for Chrissakes! And some lazy prick wants me to help pay for his kid's immunizations!? Fuck that noise.

exiledbuckeye wrote:Yes, those working poor [who don't pay income taxes because guys like Romney fight tooth and nail to pay them dick, yet still pay payroll taxes, etc. and end up with a higher effective tax rate than -- you guessed it -- Mitt Romney] really want to stay "victims". Because being poor in this country is AMAZING! Nevermind the hilarity of 47% of people paying "no income tax" because they don't make enough money(real % is more like 7%, but don't let that get in the way of a good story) is due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Just another attempt by the 1% in this country to shift the focus off of the fact that they are the ones who play victim more than anyone else.

Uh, since most poor get back those fed and state income taxes, sometimes in excess of what they paid (EIC), they effectively pay SS and Medicare. Then add in food stamps and other aid and well, try again.

I know. It's terrible with all of these poor people living like fucking kings off the govmint teet. LIKE KINGS I SAYS!!!

I say fuck 'em. We shouldnt do shit for those people. They want food, health care, and decent schools?! What do they think this is, a first world country?

I don't have time for their shit. I got my own problems. For example, I just had to walk all the way out to the patio to get a beer because there was none left in the regular fridge. I could have been rainy for Chrissakes! And some lazy prick wants me to help pay for his kid's immunizations!? Fuck that noise.

Merica

But fuck 'em if they want to abort their unwanted pregnancies. Can't stand them poor-ass fuckers on welfare, but better make sure there's more of them.